User talk:Kalki/2009

I just wanted to say thank you for helping cleanup the vandalism and nonsense done by Livonia (talk · contributions), including the block. Goes to show we need more administrators active at this hour... — RyanCross (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for initiating the cleanup. I had just checked in, and noticed what had been happening and started doing a few rollbacks before realizing the vandal account was not yet blocked. ~ Kalki 10:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I actually thought I would have had to wait several hours before an administrator came along to cleanup the mess since I don't normally see any at this hour. But thanks for finishing the job. Couldn't have done it without you. If you hadn't come along, I would have had to watch the mess sit there until an administrator did come along since I can't even do anything myself other than tag those articles for speedy deletion. — RyanCross (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually reviewing your edit record, and believe you've probably been around long enough with a respectable record of activity to be nominated as an admin here. If you would just confirm your interest, I will nominate you today. ~ Kalki 10:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I wasn't expecting that. Well, I have had some thought about adminship in the past, and I believe I could help English Wikiquote more an administrator than having to constantly tag articles for speedy deletions, waiting for someone to get to it. There are several other instances where I had to ask for admin assistance for something I wasn't able to do because I wasn't an admin. I think I'd be a good administrator for this project, so yes, I am interested. Thank you for asking. — RyanCross (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

why would you want to further misattributions, and include every variant translation even when one word is changed? the article is very long because of this with huge wholes in the page with no content. It looks silly. 169.139.1.20 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Misattributed" section of articles is a standard means of pointing out common errors of attribution. Having variant translations of non-english quotations are also encouraged. These deletions you made and the expressions you make while doing it are very consistent with past behavior from an IP with a history of trolling and vandalism, and might yet result in that IP being blocked yet again. ~ Kalki 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, thanks for nice improvement on Erich Hückel page. I'm currently quoting physicists on a daily basis on my Twitter profile and try to store them also on wikiquote. The sourcing of every quote depends on my available time. I shall try to keep it up as well as possible.--Arjen Dijksman 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the page to work on as a base, and those of all the other scientists you have been adding. It was enjoyable to expand the page, though it took up some time from work I had began doing on the Ayn Rand pages which I hope to be able to finish up later today. I am just making a brief appearance here now, and must be leaving for a while. ~ Kalki 16:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if the kabuki theatre exercise at QotD was over the top. I did not intend to bait anyone with my vote, but I had every intention of being histrionic about the argumentum ad hominem. Sometimes a dramatic exercise aids understanding, and sometimes not so much. I hope it did not disrupt your ongoing dialogue too much. ~ Ningauble 02:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The wisest people are very forgiving and not afraid to confess that they themselves are in many ways ignorant and foolish, in regard to many things, and in many ways capable of foolishness.

I usually avoid giving too many details about my own life and my own opinions here, but thought I would drop a few notes as to what many might perceive to be a change of my attitudes, or at least my expressions of them recently. I am engaged in many projects, both on the internet and in mundane life, and they are consuming nearly all of my time, and I am very eager to work on all of them which I can — but working on Wikiquote beyond a few daily maintenance chores is not currently one of my top priorities, though there is much more here which I hope I eventually have time to do.

There are a few tasks I will try to attend to in the next few days, but as I have been for many months, I remain intensely busy with many things. I do however sometimes take time to relax and watch a movie, and as there was some extensive debate I was engaged in recently as to whether or not to make use of the quote of Juvenal: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the Watchmen?), I will state that yesterday I watched the Watchmen film, after a very long period of anticipation, and have just a few words to say that I don't believe I have ever openly used for any movie before, but which sum up my opinion well; they are words which I kept repeating mentally to myself dozens of times throughout the movie, from the very first minutes of it, when I began to see its nearly perfect integration of imagery, music, and story, right through to the end: "Absolute Fucking Masterpiece."

I am not normally inclined to rave about what many would think of as an "action" film, and my tastes usually are inclined to those works which are far more clearly works intended to be intimate, intricate and cerebral. The most recent film I was impressed with before this was The Reader. The first review I read of the new movie was quite dismissive of it, and I cannot be sure that the reviewer even actually saw the movie, to make such comments as he did, and though I can concede other negative reviews have more of a point, I can't agree with them. Having read and appreciated the story, the film was definitely an intriguing and mostly faithful adaptation. I know Alan Moore would probably hate my saying so — but I believe that it was the most perfect cinematic adaptation of any story into film, EVER. It is brutal where he was brutal, tender where he was tender, and profoundly meaningful and insightful despite what will seem to many a rather gaudy appearance or presume to involve a rather shallow premise. The divergence from the story originally published was relatively minor in detail, and I believe those divergences worked very well and will reach a far wider audience. In my not so humble opinion, this is absolutely a classic motion picture, and though this looks to be a very good year in movies, I will be very disappointed if this is not recognized as Best Picture of the Year — for there is very little doubt in my mind that that is exactly what it is.

I just recently awoke from sleep, and have many other things to attend to for at least a few hours, but will try to get to work on sourcing quotes on the Pythagoras page some time later today, or at least by tomorrow, and after that perhaps try to work on a few other pages. ~ Kalki 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I read your analysis mate. I went to see the movie myself [as I enjoy many genres] and I liked the ending a lot. I liked how Manhattan covered up for Ozymandias in the end in order to save face with mankind. Even though Rorschach was sacrificed, I found the greater good to defeat the knowledge or truth. Of course Ozymandias was my favorite character (since I always choose the villain) and in this case I was surprised that he was victorious as oftentimes the villain loses; as if it's set in stone. I'm glad you liked it (although for other reasons) though I liked the triumph in the end. I liked the scene when Ozymandias sets off the nukes, eliminating the main cities congested with technological advancement (I think it had a lot to do with his desire to demolish the usage of technology and humans' desire to be slaves to gasoline, transportation, and other excesses). I liked how he set everyone up and that guy who took the cyanide, who took the fall to cover up his pleasant story. Ozymandias is indeed awesome for me. I also liked the Comedian because of how he laughed at all the follies of a fictional pleasantry (doing good when it doesn't exist). Others I found likable were the three goons in prison who pissed off Rorschach [and were killed brutally by him] as well as Moloch [I liked his execution]. Of course I did not like Nite Owl (usual stereotypical badass fighting for justice). If I had to summarize the ending..."The nasty truth is better than a clever fiction" would probably be my take on it. But my overall thoughts leaned toward the positive for the movie. - Zarbon 06:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathies with many of the motivations of Ozymandias/Veidt but very little agreement with such brutally presumptive and in many ways quite naïve schemes as he was willing to engage in. Though the schemes of Ozymandias, in many ways were less foul than many of the schemes of conventional politicians and power seekers which he used and manipulated they were still very foul and very flawed. If he truly valued human life and its capacity to grow (in unpredictable ways), more than his capacity to control and manipulate other people (through their predictable ways), he might have come up with far more wise and insightful plans, not based upon the use of mass destruction, mass murder and lies. He was a man of great strength and intellect, but he egotistically placed far too much faith in both, a "control-freak" with not enough faith in anyone to actually grow in ways that were not rigorously controlled.

Osterman/Manhattan in many ways did operate on a higher plane of awareness, power, morality and amorality than any of the other characters, but still plainly evidenced deficiencies and limitations in his capacities to be aware of or understand many things.

The Dr. Manhattan character, could after the fact, accept that massive destruction had occurred, and proceed in the ways permitting the deceptions of Ozymandias to continue in ways that it seemed likely would minimize further dangers and destruction. In the book he asserts, in regard to earlier serving the political schemes and aims of others "The morality of what I do escapes me." He was logical, but emotionally still had many limitations and much growing to do.

In the movie he was plainly reluctant to kill even so harsh, dangerously embittered, brutal and yet in many ways childishly innocent a player as Rorschach — but at the end perceived the dilemma that there was then no way to actually avoid this, without endangering the world — he did make a logical decision to become complicit in a scheme that had been full of evil, but clearly would not have condoned it, from its inception. In the movie he plainly states he neither condemns nor condones Ozymandias's plan — he simply concedes that it seems to have worked.

In the ending of the movie, he certainly was not seeking to "save face" for himself or anyone else — he permitted himself to seem incriminated in mass murder of which he was innocent, in order to provide humanity with a common enemy to fear. With the killing of Rorschach, he once more became actively complicit in the control-mad and power-seeking schemes of others, though his powers and capacities for control were far greater than any they could hope to approach or knew how to properly direct. In the original story he was never made to even seem such a fall-guy, but simply seemed to abandon any concern with humanity and went off to another galaxy.

As to those who simply glorify evil and the will to use it in either disguised or naked ways to the detriment of others, such as the dwarf in prison — one might admire some aspects of their apparent but very limited forms of cleverness or honesty — but they are in many ways the most pathetically corrupted and stupid of all people, and ultimately live a foul and inglorious life and face a foul and inglorious doom. Like the Gollum in another tale, they can serve to show people what the wise should NOT seek to become, and in various ways might inadvertently help prevent the wise from becoming, though the lessons they exhibit continue to be disregarded by many of the most foolish.

To comment on personal impressions of things largely unbidden, as I did here when I created this section, is quite out of character for me, and I might return to being more silent on many matters with this account at Wikiquote, and simply plod on primarily as a selector of QOTD, but there are times when I expect my growing impatience with some forms of stupidity will be very evident, in other places and other forms of expression.

I am active elsewhere using other names than this one, and expect to be more so in the months and years to come. As I grow older, though ever more aware and acceptive of some people's needs to do very foolish and stupid things, I know I have far less time and far less disposition to be patient with many of the worst and most destructive forms of foolishness which I encounter. This will likely be reflected in many of my activities and statements here and elsewhere. ~ Kalki 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about your own development is that your beliefs are intertwined with your judgments; you have the capacity to grow and change (moreso enlightened, if you will) through time. This movie seems to have made a great impression on your own thought process and your deductive reasoning...which you have said you will encompass in your own statements and activities here and elsewhere. It's nice to see someone else is fond of the same material (even if it's for various different reasons). I actually enjoyed the ending though. I liked Rorschach's death because of how the blood stain resembled a rorschach itself. I also liked how in the end his journal is found and brought to life, sort of like the last piece of the puzzle. Like it was all an enigma of some type. Cute. Although Ozymandias turned out to be my obvious favorite, I asked many people upon leaving who they liked most. I wasn't surprised when they said Rorschach. - Zarbon 05:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not always been noted for my willingness to speak on matters, but when I do, I have usually been noted for both my intelligence and honesty.

Life on earth is a hand-to-hand mortal combat... between the law of love and the law of hate. ~ José Martí

Faith, Hope and Charity are not virtues I am willing to discard or belittle — though many who have but casually used the terms have often done so in various ways.

You seem to believe or imply that my perspectives on certain fundamental principles might have recently radically shifted in some ways, perhaps toward a greater acceptance of the necessity of harshness and the existence of brutality. I assure you this is not the case. I simply am more aware certain needs are developing for firmer and more vigorous expressions of truth — and I am more willing to make those assertions, or constrain myself less from making them, than I long have, in the past — not because I know all that much more than I have known for many years or have greatly shifted in my attitudes or perspectives in anything but rather minor incidental and largely superficial ways — but because I am very confident that we are entering times of great challenges, when many people's perspectives and attitudes are going to have to shift greatly — profoundly and truly radically — about many things — if they are going to progress at all, amidst the general progress and turmoil of humanity's growth of potentials and necessary maturity of perspectives.

I have always been open to the presentation and study of perspectives far different from my own, and usually been most irritated with such foolishness as would seek to impel others to only express themselves in some very confined, constrained narrow and limited ranges, or which seeks to absolutely prevent and punish innovation. I am very hostile to any impulses toward the casual destruction of anyone or anything in any unwarranted ways.

The wisest people are very forgiving and not afraid to confess that they themselves are in many ways ignorant and foolish, in regard to many things, and in many ways capable of foolishness.Knowing this they know that fools can be, and must be, suffered to a point — but fools who go about presuming that fools who merely irritate them or fail to conform to some narrow standards they promote or demand should be severely punished, constrained, or brutally eliminated, merely because they believe such to be the best or easiest methods of dealing with them, are going to be increasingly recognized as the most damnable fools around. The wisest people never seek to simply punish or eliminate such fools, or any others — no matter how convenient or easy it might seem to do so — but they do seek ways to effectively oppose them, adn to prevent or eliminate the persistence of such foolishness and many others. This must sometimes occur with quite harsh lessons which are not sparing in their exposure of many forms of long hidden or well disguised forms of illusion, delusion and sheer stupidity. Many forms of these can often long pass for cleverness, or even wisdom, and the exposure of these for what they are can indeed be quite punishing to many. Though any form of unnecessary punishment is not an aim of the wisest, there are certain consequences of some forms of stupidity that cannot be anything other than punishing — and from which people cannot always be pardoned, no matter how much the wise and charitable might wish them to be.

I have no doubt that much of what I am saying or implying is not now going to immediately register very strongly with many people — but I do expect that much of it will increasingly register as very perceptive of me in the months and years to come, as they themselves come to increasingly be aware of what I am actually talking about, and why I am saying it. There has long been growths of many forms of knowledge in this world — but regrettably, also a growth in some of the most dangerous forms of foolishness and stupidity. I believe we are entering a stage where there will be a renewal and growth of many forms of wisdom, and that this will be evident by the activities and testimony of many people, with many diverse perspectives on things. There certainly will continue to be exhibited many forms of foolishness and stupidity as well — and I would be foolish if I did not expect this to be the case, with often very tragic consequences for many people — but I truly believe that the power and strength of the wisdom and the wise is growing in this world, and that this will be increasingly evident in the years to come.

In regard to the movie in question: I realize that there are action fans who will not be very pleased that it is so focused on sociologically and psychologically profundities, and people not inclined to either action films or extravagant fantasies who will fail to realize how meaningful and profoundly insightful this rather brutal movie actually is, but I stand by my assessment — to me it seems a cinematic masterpiece. There are certainly greater stories, and greater movies, but I do not believe there has ever been a better motion picture adaptation of a story ever made, though Sophie's Choice came to mind soon after I had made my initial comments above, as another truly great adaptation of a story.

If you believe me to have in any way descended into endorsing or approving brutality in being willing to be more vigorously indicative of the actuality of such brutalities as exist, or even harshly expressive in my opposition to them, you are sadly mistaken, in ways I can be little but happy about. I have always been able and willing to accept some forms of necessary or useful harshness and deception — what I have always rejected and still reject is brutality — such harshness and lies as exists merely to serve some narrow personal, provincial or partisan aims.

I have always, very profoundly, since earliest childhood, been quite aware of the prominence of both disguised and openly brutal impulses in people, and many forms of stupidity — and to a great extent have suffered because of them, and been willing to suffer much because of them — because I have always also known that there are far more than these at work in the world and in people — far more powerful, wise, and beautiful forms of human potential, full of ultimate grace and hope and love — by whatever names they are called — and through whatever ideas and ideologies people often must filter and sometimes distort their absolute Reality — and it is these I am ever devoted to. Faith, Hope and Charity are not virtues I am willing to discard or belittle — though many who have but casually used the terms have often done so in various ways. I assert that there is a greater form of Faith than has ever sought to give itself some narrow and confining name by which to label others "faithless", a greater form of Hope than would ever consent to label anyone "hopeless", and a greater form of Charity than those false and artificial forms which can only seem to survive by requiring or even demanding it of others, or labeling them unworthy of charity.

I will not always be entirely "polite" or "politically correct" by some sadly and pathetically constrained notions of such terms embraced by people of either the "right" or the "left" ranges of some very narrow political spectra — I will not always seem prudent to those with very limited and constrained notions of prudence — but I will always be willing to express and encourage the Love of Wisdom and Art, and all the Arts and Wisdom of Love, and I trust that now and in the years to come, I will be increasingly capable of doing so.

I have not always been noted for my willingness to speak on matters, but when I do, I have usually been noted for both my intelligence and honesty. I assert that those who are not willing to be honest, and as honest as they truly feel they properly and honorably can be among people are not very good friends of anyone — and when people maliciously lie or distort or deny the truth of matters about anything — they are truly being friends to no one — not even themselves — no matter who or what they might hope to serve by such lies.

There is much I will continue to be silent upon, and choose to remain silent upon, because I truly believe that there are indeed many forms of silence and confusions that can arise which can be very useful and necessary — but I am not willing to be silent or confusing merely to amuse myself or others — but only willing to be so because I truly believe the silence or confusions that exist or arise might come to ultimately be beneficial to many people — and I will not now be silent in asserting that I believe that this is rarely the case with actual lies, and never so with many forms of them. This is one of the reasons I tend to be so rigorously honest, and to state either very truthful expressions or none at all.

I have expressed far more open hostility and anger to some actions recently than many might be accustomed to me doing. Though I am actually quite calm and placid most of the time, and deeply appreciative of what beauty comes my way in life — but I am not someone who is entirely reluctant to often be far more actively engaged in thought, debate, and unpleasant contention than most care to be, in many ways.

Some people content themselves to declaring certain ideas in certain very limited or deeply flawed ways, and expect people to simply accept them and embrace them, as if they were clearly perfect and perfectly commendable to all people, and that any contrary ideas should simply be automatically suppressed. I am quite aware that even when such ideas are good, it is rarely, if ever, that such ideas are purely of the greatest worth. I am quite aware that the interplay of my ideas with the ideas of others will be necessary for the fullest possible revelation of truth that I might attempt to make, and I welcome the occurrences of such interplay, even if I cannot always be sincerely welcoming of all the ideas which my own must play against. Some of the ideas I often find myself confronting or contending against are those of various political or religious extremes who think nearly all virtue is to be found in their particular agenda and aims, or conversely people who to some extent seem to embrace the vacuous idea that all opinions are equal, or should be constantly treated as if they were, no matter what observation and logic might lead most highly sensible people to assume. To any person with healthy levels of common sense, such ideas are among the most repugnant — which is why some people try to make others seem to endorse such positions when they do not, or deny exhibiting such attitudes and tendencies when they plainly have.

I have a few times in recent months recounted to a few people something one of my closest friends told me years ago: "You're so honest it scares people — they aren't used to it." At the time I was having a few difficulties because of my honesty, and increased openness about some things a few people found very surprising — but though I sometimes feel I have made mistakes in being open about some things, I never regret being honest — I can only sorrow that so many people expect or demand the opposite of me and others — a willingness to lie, or accept lies as if they were true or truly necessary — for that is something I simply cannot usually consent to give.

One of the earliest statements I bothered to post here is one which I still endorse, without equivocation: "Love is the ultimate of Holies — by which all else receives it's worth." Guided by this and many other such assertions, I live devotedly for the sake of Awareness, Life, and Love. ~ Kalki 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"...but fools who go about presuming that fools who merely irritate them or fail to conform to some narrow standards they promote or demand should be severely punished, constrained, or brutally eliminated, merely because they believe such to be the best or easiest methods of dealing with them, are going to be increasingly recognized as the most damnable fools around."

- This summarizes both types of my favorite characters/people, whether speaking about films or history. The first are fools who punish others merely because they a) are capable of doing so or b) know nothing more than being a bully. In both instances, they appear the best to me because they in turn become cowardly when faced with an opponent that extenguishes their flame. I enjoy those who emit this personification, this characteristic...when it is instilled in some form. And the second type of character I like is he who can't defend himself and ends up dead as a result. It's a complexity to which both characters fall under, somewhat of a "victim complexity" if you will. And ever so often, the villains themselves end up becoming the victims of another, so it all works out for me. All my favorite people end tragically because of their own insistence to spread misery. Hence my love for them.

- To illustrate further, I can bring my most favorite character into this spectrum of thought. Zarbon is Lord Frieza's elite henchman. He serves Frieza with loyalty because he is aware of the depth of his master's power. Out of his own fear, he does everything and anything his master orders of him. However, he also advises Frieza on many matters, such as the eradication of anyone who may pose a threat later on. Frieza takes this into mind and eliminates any and every threat in his path, exterminating planets full with billions of people in the galaxy. He possesses a system of interplanetary trade and the entire North Quadrant of the universe fears his name. In the case of my most favorite character: "Tis better to be beside the devil than in his path". And throughout the years of military service, Zarbon is faced with a deadly opponent, one of the only survivors of the planet that they had destroyed. The fact that they had left this one alive and allowed this person (Vegeta) to grow so enormously powerful was their fault. And after Zarbon had killed millions for Frieza (including men, women, and children in a brutal manner), he himself is executed by Vegeta, who was a survivor of his onslaught. Of course, this makes me love my favorite character more. Not only because Zarbon is designed to be exquisite and magnificent, vain and a lover of beauty, but also because he suffers a brutal death; one that he had grown worthy of. But the difference between myself and most others I have come to know is that most prefer the character who stands up against the oppressor while I prefer the oppressor (who ends up dead).

I can't help it. It's who I am. It's what I do

- In one of my favorite simple short stories, the tale of a scorpion and a swan, I find the most enigmatic truth (which can be applied to all my favorite characters). A scorpion comes to a lake and wants to cross. A swan swims up to his end of the lake. The swan tells the scorpion that he will help him cross the river only if the scorpion promises not to sting him. The scorpion agrees and climbs onto the swan's back. The swan begins to swim through the lake. Once he reaches the middle of the lake, the scorpion stings the swan. The swan and scorpion begin to sink. Before both are dying, the swan asks the scorpion: "Now you have doomed us both! Why did you do it? Why did you sting me!?" And the scorpion replies: "I can't help it. It's who I am. It's what I do." And they both die. To me, this is beautiful. This is majestic. This is a tale worth telling. In death, there is much beauty here. And is it any wonder that almost all my favorite characters can be attributed or based on the ideology of what the scorpion says: "It's what I am. It's what I do."

"There has long been growths of many forms of knowledge in this world — but regrettably, also a growth in some of the most dangerous forms of foolishness and stupidity...There certainly will continue to be exhibited many forms of foolishness and stupidity as well — and I would be foolish if I did not expect this to be the case, with often very tragic consequences for many people."

- And I like the fact that there has been a growth of this "foolishness and stupidity" though I wouldn't characterize any heightened forms of viciousness as foolish and stupid. A bully enjoys to impose upon those weaker than he is. Think of any movie. I can be easily descriptive of this scenario. A bully shreds anyone in his path until someone stands in his way and defeats him. At that point, the audience would most likely cheer for the person who stands against the bully. But not I. I prefer the bully because he is an agent of chaos, evil, brutality, vileness, cruelty, etc.. So when the bully dies a barbaric death, I end up liking his character moreso than any other. Of course I also like any others associated with the bully type character, because they condone his ill will.

"I have always, very profoundly, since earliest childhood, been quite aware of the prominence of both disguised and openly brutal impulses in people, and many forms of stupidity."

- As have I. It has become apparent that mankind has produced much folly to go with truth. But I shall not blame man, nor shall I shun it's greatest errors. I should rather say that it has added "color" and "parallel" to what might have been a simply lame society. Therefore, man needs to produce brutal impulses as much as it produces profound "awareness, life, and love".

"I assert that those who are not willing to be honest, and as honest as they truly feel they properly and honorably can be among people are not very good friends of anyone — and when people maliciously lie or distort or deny the truth of matters about anything — they are truly being friends to no one — not even themselves — no matter who or what they might hope to serve by such lies."

- Personally, I don't like liars. I can't remember a time when I had lied, nor "colored the truth" or anything else of that nature. However, as much as I hate the act of lying, I have fallen victim to lies rather often from others. I believe that it has become a human condition and the more I have associated with people, the more I have come to understand that even though I prefer not to lie and despise the very act of it, people have made a career out of lying alone.

"Some people content themselves to declaring certain ideas in certain very limited or deeply flawed ways, and expect people to simply accept them and embrace them, as if they were clearly perfect and perfectly commendable to all people, and that any contrary ideas should simply be automatically suppressed."

- And this summarizes most if not all my favorite characters. They suppress others because they feel they're right. And I like them for it. Their perseverence to embrace their cause, as cruel and unworthy as it may be, is what I admire most. The fact that they relentlessly fight to the end is another beautiful principle. Sometimes, they are executed in combat...sometimes, they are executed when they least expect it, and at other times...they execute themselves in order to escape the wrath of their enemies. All my favorite characters end up in one of these ways, but the end result being the same: death. And death becomes the one thing which makes me love all the people I love.

"I never regret being honest — I can only sorrow that so many people expect or demand the opposite of me and others — a willingness to lie, or accept lies as if they were true or truly necessary — for that is something I simply cannot usually consent to give."

- I'm going to have to agree with you here. Honesty is commendable. To remain honest even in times of difficulty, it's a very brilliant feature associated with man. It isn't very often that I can find someone who agrees that it is better to remain honest rather than lie in order to succeed. - Zarbon 14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One constantly has to compare what seem to be eternal truths with what seem to be incidental impressions to determine where the most truly formidable and profound forms of truth can and do endure.

I have always been reluctant to condemn or censure the ways of others needlessly, and only prone to condemn such aspects of their will as are so tyrannous and presumptive as cannot be tolerated among any who have the highest levels of respect for both justice and liberty, rather than merely their own will and the might to impose it.

I have long recognized that most people tend to feel they are entirely right in many things they do, and prone to insist that others are mostly or entirely wrong. I try to avoid that mistake, as well as leaping from that error to one that assumes all points of view are equal and that there are no eternal truths to be found. One constantly has to compare what seem to be eternal truths with what seem to be incidental impressions to determine where the most truly formidable and profound forms of truth can and do endure.

The appetite for power over others and such shallow and false forms of glory as arise from pursuit or misapplication of such power, is a truly pathetic matter of psychological pathologies and not one worthy of any form of genuine pride. The greatest sources of delight and proper pride in the wise is in their ability to help others without exercising such a power.

The levels of delusion evident in those who seek to glorify various forms of villainy and cowardice as some sort of viable or desirable aesthetic ideal is something I usually see little point in discussing with people deeply immersed in them. I simply go on providing what affirmation of the wisdom of those with greater levels of awareness and abilities I can, to the extent I can, and avoid being too distracted by any but the most immediately necessary forms of confrontation with such stupidity.

A person of great wisdom and abilities might understand and accept the reality of many of the flaws, deficiencies, ignorance and confusion which keep people's minds constrained to such pits of delusion, but cannot pretend to in any way admire or condone them. They might be quite aware that many people embrace a rather illusory sense of "strength" in "withstanding" or even desiring forms of unethical behavior towards others that most people find disgusting and repulsive, but they are also quite aware that this is often to a great extent because of the frustrations or even despair of such people being found admirable, impressive, extraordinary, or even acceptable in any ways other than such inversion of many truly fundamental ethical values.

Unlike villains and other forms of cowardly and confused fools, who often seek to blame their victims for being in some way "inferior" to their "innate superiority" or "beautiful villainy" and thus in some way "deserving" of punishment, and worthy of nothing more, I don't seek to "blame" any particular person, nor humanity in general, for being ignorant and confused about many things — but I don't therefore shrink from recognizing many of the most profound and dangerous forms of stupidity when I encounter them, and from honestly declaring them to be what I find them to be. Even so, to the extent possible, I choose to provide necessary seeds to greater levels of awareness, which can at least gradually be nurtured and developed in most, rather than simply censuring or condemning people for having been lacking in such awareness.

I have always been reluctant to condemn or censure the ways of others needlessly, and only prone to condemn such aspects of their will as are so tyrannous and presumptive as cannot be tolerated among any who have the highest levels of respect for both justice and liberty, rather than merely their own will and the might to impose it.

I recognize the need to sometimes be harshly active against the aims and impulses of people who are extremely confused in many ways, but this is far different from an embrace of any form of brutality which delights in, glorifies, or actively promotes needless damage or destruction of other people's lives and truly vital needs. Your assertion that humanity "needs to" produce brutal impulses as much as it needs to advance through greater development of "awareness, life, and love" is something I absolutely REJECT, as an extreme delusion. EXTREMELY ignorant and confused people often feel a need to embrace and glorify such impulses — but with certain levels of awareness comes a recognition of greater capacities and ultimately the need to be as gentle as practically possible and only as harsh as apparently necessary towards others. Even with the full realization that the most weak minded, deluded and depraved of people will still tend to seek out and seize upon nearly any excuse they can to apparently justify or continue in their brutal ways, and to think highly of themselves for doing so, it is not a view that the wisest abandon.

The very foolish often delight in inverting the policies of the wisest, aiming to be as harsh as possible with anyone they can, and only as gentle as they are impelled to be out of fear of those with greater strengths and ability, and even attempting to glorify their attitudes and behavior. People with even a bit more sense simply continue to fight many of the goals of such people as effectively as they can — and to the extent possible, avoid stumbling into such traps of error as even the most foolish and least capable of people can sometimes set for the most wise and capable.

To seek to punish people merely for having been foolish and stupid is something the wise recognize as usually foolish and stupid, and it is only where there is clear will to continue in paths extreme foolishness and stupidity that are dangerous or detrimental to others that some forms of extra precautions and penalties need be considered as a way of preventing or discouraging this.

The wisest of people have long risen above the fogs of confusion that blind many people to many aspects of reality, and are better able to make their way through such fogs as they encounter.

You seek to use an illustration of a scorpion here to make some point, while emphasizing a story with which I am very familiar. Like most people, I take a great deal of delight in being more intelligent and aware of many things than a scorpion. I have encountered scorpions, as well as far more dangerous creatures, and I once crushed one with a hammer and but little qualm because it was at a handhold I needed while climbing up a dangerous and crumbling limestone cliff in Italy, from which a boulder larger than myself had earlier fallen. There are actually far more interesting things to tell of the encounter than this, but I will simply say that I had no hatred of the scorpion, but it was aggressive, dangerous, and in my way, and I had absolutely no trust that it would let me pass without a dangerous strike at me. It could be argued that it had perhaps entirely as much right to be on that cliff as I did, but I perceived no valid reason to risk my own survival for the survival of a scorpion. I don't accept the asinine self-serving arguments of those in whom the will to punish is strong that people can't change any more than a scorpion can, but I do recognize that there can often be points of crisis when others can't wait for them to change, and cannot afford to make much effort to pardon them from the natural consequences of their most foolish forms of will. The scorpion would not let me get anywhere near it without attempting to strike at my hand, was very fast, and I had very limited options in dealing with it. It could not much change it's very limited will, but most humans can.

Like many people, you seem to eager to make a virtue of persistence, in and of itself. Persistence in truly worthy causes certainly can be a virtue, but persistence without an ability and will to actually reflect upon many related things from many points of view, other than one's own (in order to better judge if the goals one persists in pursuing, are truly worthy of persistence, and can withstand the tests of broader examination, and not merely the test of duration among the very like-minded), is simply a rather common form of stupidity. The scorpion had no capacity to alter its perspective of treating me as anything other than a frightening danger, and so towards it I had little choice but to become a lethal doom. People can and do change their perspectives towards other people, and in this capacity is the greatest hope for humanity's progress and survival.

To "continue to fight" for merely personal or partisan aims — especially with the expressed desire to exercise wanton and unjust oppression of others — which the wisest and greatest have always found repulsive and vile, and defined as evil, might seem "permanently necessary" — but ONLY for people who can't easily rise very high in their levels of awareness of human potentials. It long may have been necessary for many people to remain extremely stupid in very many ways, and by force and numbers to eliminate many aspirations in others to higher levels of awareness, but it is not necessary to accept that the ways of stupidity will always prevail over the ways of greater sense.

There have long been many very desperate people who desire something that will easily make them seem extraordinary, to themselves or others, if only in ways extraordinarily repugnant to most people — but throughout all the ages, those have even a bit more awareness than that will continue to realize that such people are pathetically foolish and profoundly stupid, and it is only very rarely that such people are even noted or remembered long at all by most people for anything other than their stupidity. Even though to seek ways to be noted or remembered for their vile aims and acts might be a challenging task for many — for anyone who retains a truly vital composure of their own mind, it remains a profoundly unappealing goal.

I will not always shrink from being harsh, especially against those who seek to promote needless or merely wanton harshness or callousness — that is what I actually define to be brutality — but I also can and will be harsh to some other extremes of foolishness and stupidity. I certainly encourage a calm demeanor and a forgiving disposition to many of the challenges of life, but I am certainly no absolute pacifist, and recognize that there is a need to fight and fight fiercely against certain forms of foolishness and delusion, if extreme injuries and dooms are to be avoided.

The wisest of people have long risen above the fogs of confusion that blind many people to many aspects of reality, and are better able to make their way through such fogs as they encounter. They avoid being trapped in the contests over which bog or wasteland they might lay strongest claim to possessing. They blaze what trails they need to, in order to rise higher and to pass on to realms of greater awareness and being, free of many of the deficiencies which keep people viciously hostile to each other and and presumptive of their rightness in being vicious toward people and groups, rather than simply vigorously opposed to the ignorance and confusion and deep delusions which keep many people inclined to be so relentlessly hostile to others, and to even the most innocent and beautiful of human aims, if they are not of some clear benefit to them. ~ Kalki 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You updated QotD just before I added a comment, so I wanted to let you know I approve of the trimming. With the third statement I found a wry charm in the error: the meeting of ephemeral and eternal is one of the hallmarks of wisdom. Without the third statement we diverge from the author's intent to express tension, but I am ok with excerpting the better half and skipping the drama. ~ Ningauble 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval. I must be leaving now though, and might not be back online for a few hours. ~ Kalki 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you edited recently, I hope you're online, could you block this guy and delete his user page? He's a cross wiki vandal. Thanks, Patríciamsg 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I had just saw a couple of your reverts, and was in the process of blocking that account even as you were requesting me to do so. This person is one of the more persistently infantile of the vandals we've been getting lately. ~ Kalki 10:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid we'll have to put up with this kind of so-called "people" while wikis are wikis. Thank you for your work, cheers, Patríciamsg 10:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Kalki, I saw on the Hans Hofmann quotes page that you added a lot of pictures. I don't understand way you add these. They havenothing to do with the work Hans Hofmann made himself and his ideas on art. I am collecting quotes with sources as exactly as possible, to give a face to the man: what he have said and where he stood for. In my view added pictures should do the same and ilustrate his work, his art. For me it is completely personal and unclear what your added pictures connect to his quotes and his art. In don't understand why you take this kind of lyrical freedom. It is disurbing the information. kind regardsBenfo 09:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I had realized from the start that some admirers of Hofmann's visual works might be displeased with many of the images I found to illustrate some of the quotes of his ideas expressed in words. I believe images generally help make a page more interesting to most people, and can often shed new forms of light which reveal greater patterns of association and the wide applicability of ideas expressed.

As there were no images available of either Hofmann or his work, I had to resort to entirely using images of other artists and their works, or of nature and natural processes, which to some degree corresponded to some of the statements he made. I was very aware that most of the images didn't evoke Hofmann's personal visual styles all that well, and because of this, I actually was hesitant to add so much as I did. I actually did reject some things I thought fit well with a quote, but would diverge more from his own stylistic preferences. Where other artists or their works were clearly the subject of a quote I felt more free to use the works or images of other artists.

Hofmann often spoke of not binding oneself to merely superficial fashions or fads of imitation, and yet profoundly recognized that it is only through being able to manipulate surface appearances in sometimes startling and puzzling new ways that artists can get people to transcend the superficial and both rise above it with greater awareness of its meaning and significance, and penetrate to the more profound wellsprings of inspiration within their own minds. I hope that the images I added to his page and others can perform this function, albeit, for at least the time being, with styles sometimes quite different than those preferred by the subjects of the pages. ~ Kalki 15:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Kalki, Thanks for your clear reaction. I see the difficulties you give. But why are there no images of Hofmann himself avaiable? There are enough on the Internet, I think? And also pictures of the painters around him he admired or felt connected with.

I am not a special admirer of Hofmann, but I realize how delictate and difficult his quotes are to understand. The point for me is that especially a picture-maker himself explains his ideas the best in his own pictures or those of other artists he mentions or refers to. It is something else for writer- or poet- or musicien-quotes. But a painter, he is a picture-maker essentially. all the best, Benfo 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a lot of nice pictures of paintings by Hans Hofmann on Google pictures: [1] and [2]. Is it possible to use them, in combination with the Licensing-warning as used on Wikimedia Commons (see Marc Chagall for instance: [3])?? That would give a new perspective with quotes of painters and other visual artists. I am not experienced in this kind of matters and you are I presume; I just collect good quotes of artists, that is my job to do. all the best Benfo 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are very few images by many prominent and notable artists available at the commons, and as yet none of Hofmann or his works, because of ever more expansive and lasting claims of either the need or desirability of extending copyright protections, and ever more restrictive and constraining laws against the far more necessary existence and growth of a public commonwealth of the heritage of humanity in recent years. Those works you pointed out above which include some by Chagall hopefully are or will be retained because of their specific status or by certain loop-holes which permit use certain forms of images of publicly displayed art. If you can actually find any images of Hofmann or his works, which have been explicitly released to the public domain or one of the Wikimedia Commons-compatible licenses such as those pioneered by Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, or by existing loopholes in the laws and rules, you are certainly very welcome to add them there, and I will use them — but the prospects of finding much are not all that great I am afraid. ~ Kalki 17:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations, the situation in the Netherlands is different from the U.S. in these regards, I think. Is it possible to wcontact museums or foundations, and that they give permission? You ahve experience in that?Benfo 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to respond to your comments earlier, when I first saw them, but — please try to do some more constructive editing if you are aiming at attaining a global account with this name. ~ Kalki 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help updating at {{New pages}} - I am so glad this idea is taking off and different users are using it. :) Cirt (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvements made. I often failed to bother updating things very frequently with the old mess of formatting in the old system, but the new system makes it far simpler procedure. ~ Kalki 11:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was fun to update it. :) Cirt (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough to blithely pronounce the remark "disputed". You have to say by whom. It can't be Wikiquote editors or random Joes, or else half the quotes that come from a politician could be "disputed" for political convenience. It has to be Bush, an associate of Bush, or some kind of recognized authority on the man. w:User:WillOakland 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculous statement IS disputed —it has been disputed for years, and continues to be disputed by many people who obviously could find much better things to do with their lives than dispute such incidental and ultimately inconsequential trivialities. This and many other unresolved or irresolvable disputes have been disputed here for years, and most editors have accepted "Disputed" sections as an unhappy medium of compromise between various forms of zealous outrage at human fallibility, error, and the limits of verification and blame which are attainable only in the dreams and delusions of the most irrational. I don't think anyone of any reasonable levels of intelligence or veracity would question the fact that it IS disputed and remains disputable, as I indicated in my comments on the talk page when I last restored the remark to the disputed section:

The RIDICULOUS disputes over this ridiculous remark have continued to this point in a very ridiculous fashion. I have just restored it to the disputed section, having countered the attempts of zealots from opposite poles of the sphere of stupidity from either removing it entirely or treating it as absolutely beyond dispute. Though I, for one, do not think it very likely that this remark is a complete fabrication, there remains much room for reasonable doubt as to its accuracy, and as there are apparently no recordings of the incident, the disputes are never likely to be settled absolutely one way or another, and thus the quote should remain in the Disputed section. ~ Kalki 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not foresee any rational end to the dispute over the quotation, and I am not at all inclined to pretend that I do to please irrational zealots of either persuasion in the matter. ~ Kalki 03:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

hello i saw you have removed one of quotes that i have added, can you explain why ? Mardetanha 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked in her briefly and noted your comment. As the link you made shows, I actually didn't remove the statement. It was one I was familiar with, but as it was unsourced, I sought out a source for it, and finding many citing this to Rossetti but without citation of any specific work, indicated that the earliest publications of this statement which I could find were those made of G. K. Chesterton, I expanded the statement to his mention of Rossetti stating such a thing, and created a "Quotes about Rossetti" section for it. If some earlier work of Rossetti can be found which includes it, I would be happy to include that citation instead, among the sourced quotes. It is possible that Chesterton was mistaken in his rendition of the remark, whatever its origins might be, but that later quotations of it relied upon the accuracy of Chesterton's testimony, for I have found nothing earlier than Chesterton citing it.

I recently noticed a very similar situation in regard to a statement that has become attributed to Ludwig Wittgenstein, apparently based on no earlier source than Stephen Hawking, and created a disputed section for that:

The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.

Though this has been quoted extensively as if it were a statement of Wittgenstein, it was apparently first published in A Brief History of Time (1988) by Stephen Hawking, p. 175, where it is presented in quotation marks and thus easily interpreted to be a quotation, but could conceivably be Hawking paraphrasing or giving his own particular summation of Wittgenstein's ideas, as there seem to be no published sources of such a statement prior to this one. The full remark by Hawking reads:

Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!

If some earlier source can be found here I would put that into the sourced quotes also, but without such verification I feel very inclined to believe it might be a mistaken attribution or paraphrase by Hawking. Wittgenstein was generally far more careful with his language and his use of it than it seems Hawking may have been in this case. ~ Kalki 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great :-) Thanks for help and this notes which taught me lots of things Mardetanhatalk 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was aware the tags I placed were still up, and that there were newer edits to work into the pages. I had initially intended to do only minor work on the Rand page, figuring a full cleanup would take longer than I had time for, but became caught up in doing more and more there, and realized I should also take care of the merges which were proposed. I knew that would probably take at least a couple hours of checking to do properly, with quotes arranged in proper sequences, but I had to break off from that, and I have not yet got around to finishing it. I will probably again attempt to finish up things on these pages within a few hours. ~ Kalki 00:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably will be at least a few more hours before I can get around to finishing that, but I do intend to do it within the next day. Today my cable went down for several hours, and I'm just getting back online, and must leave be leaving soon for a few more. ~ Kalki 21:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am glad you are undertaking to sort it out. I should spend more time on my own list of articles needing work. ~ Ningauble 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue to fail to get around to completing that task, and probably won't have time do so today, as I must be leaving in a few hours, and won't be home until tomorrow, but as the files I've edited thus far are not yet in a postable format, it is unlikely I will get around to even finishing what I've done, let alone doing more, until tomorrow. ~ Kalki 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No rush—I was not waiting to work on the article myself. (I have not read Rand since I was a youth, and am unlikely to circle back that way.) I just sent a reminder in case you had lost track of it, as I tend to do myself with diffuse multitasking. ~ Ningauble 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is I did much work on it, but broke off finishing it, and as I consider Rand's expressions and mind brilliant but often very flawed and all the more depressing in many ways because of that, I've easily found other things of greater interest and priority to concern myself with. I will probably finish it up tomorrow though and then do work on the Ralph Waldo Emerson page — someone whose ideas I am more fully and less reservedly attuned to. ~ Kalki 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you ceased adding images or even removed images on the Wikiquote pages. Not only are they distracting from the primary content (the text itself), but they significantly increase load time when I go to a page for a simple quote. While some of them may have something to do with the source material itself, many of them are abstract symbols or representations that would normally play a minor role in the material itself. I understand that this is one of your pet projects, but I know I am not the only person who has been perturbed by this. It has significantly detracted from my enjoyment of and use of this site. I would appreciate if you took this under consideration the next time you seek to "revert" someone editing the images off of any one of these pages. Thank you. 71.114.55.221 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to be very familiar with situations here, and you have chosen to remove all images from the Dune pages, I am considering it highly likely that you are the same editor who has been removing images from that page in the past, using various IPs and sometimes with extremely abusive insults to myself. If this is not the case, I still stand by the assertion that however perturbed you might be by the inclusion of images which you do not appreciate, your implicit assertions that you should have the right to simply make a mass removal of material which most people are not perturbed by, and others are appreciative of, remains presumptive of a right to be destructive of other's work which I do not accept. ~ Kalki 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not that person whom you have mentioned; I am merely a concerned user. I became curious when I came to this site to look up quotations from literary works, and I also used to maintain/assist in editing a few pages here on an account that has since been lost to the sands of time. I know I am not the only one because I have looked at the Talk pages which are, as is the rest of this, free to the public for use and editing. It is very frustrating to me that the person (yourself) who has the most "control" over this entire site makes the conscious choice to ignore those who ask why there are such images on a website that was conceived to be text-based. As I have neither the time nor the inclination to wage a full-fledged "edit war" (and as such a thing would likely be futile at best, given your administrator status), I can only restate my utter repulsion at such a misuse of power, and cease to use this site for its intended purpose.

I am truly saddened by what this Wiki resource has become. 71.114.55.221 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I reject the idea that there is a misuse of power here. Because this issue has arisen most frequently on the Dune pages, and only rarely on a very few others, I thought it was a likelihood that you might be that same person whom I mentioned. Because it was an issue that had been discussed there before, and your removal of material seemed constrained to the images and captions, I actually refrained from simply an immediate blocking, such as I might normally employ against vandals on most pages, and provided you a chance to make some comment on matters. People can disagree as to what images might be best on pages, but I believe few would disagree that they make most pages more interesting, and actually draw attention to many quotes and ideas that might otherwise be overlooked, especially on larger pages where the dull monotony of plain type soon becomes rather soporific. As more images become available on the commons, and more people become involved in editing, I expect a greater diversity of images to be employed, and I believe that will primarily enhance the interesting qualities of the pages. ~ Kalki 02:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for this. I was the one who deleted it because none of the quotes were sourced at the time, but I just noticed your restoration and the sourced quotes you added. Not many people here actually take the time to find sources for quotes that have been requested to be deleted. I would do it myself... but I'm honestly only experienced with finding quotes for baseball-related subjects. — RyanCross (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know we all have limits to the time we can spend on things. I too find myself with too little time to do all that I would wish, but I prefer spending most of what time I can here adding to pages or sourcing things to removing material that hasn't been sourced sufficiently, though I know that much of that can be helpful. I actually was glad to have notice the deletion, because I am especially fond of surrealists and absurdists, and had a chance to explore a bit more on Ernst looking for these sources. Absurdly I had done most of the work last night soon after the deletion and then forgotten about it and very nearly closed the window I had been doing the work in, without saving it, thinking it was one of the many windows I had finished with. ~ Kalki 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kalki, so I've been fooling around with some of the bureaucrat buttons, but I'm still not entirely sure how to perform renaming and usurpation requests. I basically know when it is okay to perform this action (as I read on this before the RfB), but how to do so is the problem for me. I would think it would have something to do with Special:RenameUser, but I just can't figure this out (especially usurpation). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The renaming is usually pretty simple but I usually try to do at least some check on the status of any requested names on other Wikimedia projects before doing them. If a request is made in the standard format, as on the last user I renamed at Wikiquote:Changing_username, the linked names usually are posted automatically in the proper fields when the "rename user" option is selected. If they aren't they can simply be typed in. The usurpations can be more of a problem, and I haven't done one of these myself in a while — I believe that these involved first renaming the previous named account and then the requested account. Luckily there still haven't been as many of these as I feared there would be when the SUL process began. I believe there were some situations, at least early on, where a steward actually had to be involved in getting the names sorted out properly amidst the SUL unification processes. ~ Kalki 07:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Having just completed the request below, I became re-acquainted with of some of the details. The renaming of the usurped account can be something like "Name (usurped)" or "Name 0" or such, and then the renaming of the requesting account to the desired name can proceed. There can be warnings that the renamed account will be detached from the SUL and the target name has an SUL identity, but if one has sufficiently checked the situation regarding the respective names, one can proceed despite these, and the renamed user can then merge the renamed account with their SUL account. ~ Kalki 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am coming to you as my request for account usurpation has been active for more than one month with no reply. Could you please process it? Thanks in advance. Tieum p 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The renamings requested have now been done. You should be able to merge the Nakor account into your SUL by logging in, or merging accounts through your preference page options. ~ Kalki 04:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the controversy that surrounded him later in life, the quote for the Main Page is moving and poignant at this time. Nice choice. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not been able to do as much around here lately as I would like to, because there are a few other matters I am working on which have much greater urgency upon me, but here and elsewhere I try to make what little I can find the time to do count for as much as I can. ~ Kalki 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently typing this in from someone else's iMac, but my previous 2 edits were made from a new iPhone, after my finger accidently hit the rollback link as I was checking in on things here, and it took me a bit of fumbling with my fingers and relatively tiny hypertext links to correct that. I don't expect that to happen very often, but I thought I would explain the cause of it, as it is more than likely to happen a few times, at least until I get more used to using the touchpad, and what options are available to me for editing, when I check in here when away from my primary computer at home. ~ Kalki 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out the Clean Delete Reasons gadget in the preferences. That'll automatically clean out the system-generated summary when you delete a page, which would have been helpful on pages like User:Dennys revenge 3 (where the deletion summary specifically says "fuck evula"). EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like to see what is going on with the deletions. In particular, knowing whose contribution it was enables me to recognize the troublemakers. However, in the case of one-time or indef-blocked accounts it doesn't matter, and I fully understand how you might not want to look at a pagefull of such offensive comments. ~ Ningauble 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I am not usually inclined to even attempt to divulge many of my most significant reasons for doing many things which I do, I do strive to be as honest as I can when I make any statement, and I will state that I simply don't feel the need or desire to cover my own or anyone else's tracks when I am moved to take any particular actions, and very prone to let things begin to proceed in different directions without actually erasing any records of much that has occurred.

I tend to believe that it is best that all kinds of fools be presented with options to live and learn, and not for anyone to be kept so much in the dark that they merely go on making the same kinds of errors over and over again, to the detriment of themselves and others. Many, of course will be inclined to make new and worse errors, but where records are not erased, people can come to make better assessments of who it is who are most prone to make the most errors, and aim for the worst ends, and thus take adequate but not excessive precautions against such behavior in the future. Thus ALL can come to live and learn, to the fullest extents possible.

I just had time to do a bit of page editing just now, and make the QOTD selection, and I am in a bit of a rush now, and will probably soon be gone for at least several hours. ~ Kalki 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough if you don't want to use the gadget, just please make sure that for attack pages, you're not leaving the attack in the deletion summary. Transparency about what you're doing is one thing, but the whole reason that the pages get deleted is because their content needs to be gone. EVula// talk // ☯ // 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if it would be alright if I removed the tag you have on the Ayn Rand article that says it's "in use" by you? I'm assuming you just accidentally left it there. Thanks, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I had been increasingly inclined to forget that these were unfinished, and initially expected to be finished with the tasks in a few hours of the initial edits. I will try to finish off what I can of the work I did on these today, and remove the notices. ~ Kalki 00:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not had the time in the last day to finish these off, and will be gone the rest of the day, thus made QOTD selection a little earlier than normal. Finishing these off will be one of the tasks I expect to first attend to tomorrow. ~ Kalki 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am currently on a trip, and will very likely be checking in on things here only a few minutes a day for about a week, mostly to update QOTD pages, which it is very likely I will seclect earlier in the day than I usually do, so as to insure they are posted. If I have the time, I might go ahead and make preliminary selections for several days in advance based on current rankings, which can be changed if rankiings change before the due time. ~ Kalki 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've only had a few minutes to check in here today, but did manage to find one of the better images of a Kingfisher to use with a splendid quote. I must be leaving now -- there are quite a few other things I must be taking care of and it will probably be a few days before I will have time to do much here. ~ Kalki 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all right, we all need a few days off. Cya' soon! I might just take a few days off too! :P ... but I'm fickle, so maybe not! See ya soon, Kalki,

Hi, wouldn't it make sense to make a seperate page for quotations about madonna considering that the section is so huge? Or is it just not something that is done on Wikiquote? PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The current practice is to keep quotes by or about a person on a single page, so much as possible, though separate pages for particular works of authors have also been created. I do not believe that there is as yet any need to create separate pages for comments about anyone, and personally much prefer to keep as much as possible of the notable quotations by or about a person on a single page. ~ Kalki 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you please block/talk to Ip user: 85.240.175.245. All his/her edits so far have been vandalism, and I don't know the Wikiquote equivalent of WP:AIV, plus you'r the only admin I am aware of so far. Thanks. PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A warning has now been placed on the talk page for this IP address. Further vandalism could result in a block. ~ Kalki 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Every day I usually move about between several locations. I am not currently at home, and have to consult some files I have there to do some further work as effectively and efficiently as possible, so it might be several hours before I do much more editing here. I am just making this note, now, for though I might check in a few times before then, I probably won't be highly active for at least a few hours. ~ Kalki 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed a few of the files I had intended to examine earlier, and a few of the pages I feel need much more work and revision here, and decided to refrain from much of the activity I briefly considered doing, because it would probably be far too time-consuming for me to begin to tackle at this point.

I am currently constraining myself from much activity which I perceive to be appropriate and even necessary here, due to the extent of it and the many complications which I perceive will likely be involved, and because of some other extensive tasks on other projects which I consider of much greater ultimate importance. I do intend to eventually catch up on many tasks I have long been neglecting here, which I feel it is imperative for me to eventually begin to deal with, hopefully within a few weeks or perhaps, conceivably, even a few days, but I just wish to state that, though I intensely desire to do much more here, I should not be counted upon to presently do much more than the daily QOTD upkeep, and an occasional monitoring against vandalism, until I have completed some of these other tasks. ~ Kalki 07:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great... Some OTHER IP vandalises page The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and you template "me" as the vandal. I think you should check this again... and apologise. My edit was good and still exists on that page. I am NOT a vandal, and resent being erroneously tagged as one on my very first edit to this particular wiki. Fighting vandalism is a good thing, but FFS, be careful and watch what you're doing. -- 142.177.77.35 12:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now corrected and apologized for the error I made in tagging this IP. ~ Kalki 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying that we assume good faith. Thanks, Kalki, for the great work you invariably do here on wikiquote. --Arjen Dijksman 08:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If the TV series articles have an episode that last one hour then how many quotes are allowed per one hour episode?(StarWarsFanBoy 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

I probably am not the best person to ask about that, but I believe current practices are indicated at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. I really don't keep track of these and many other current policy details, as I very rarely edit the pages on TV series, and have begun to draw some flak because I have indicated I strongly oppose strict numerical limits which are treated as absolute official or even legal mandates, rather than looser guidelines which are treated as flexible advisories, which could be exceeded by any editors without any express permission of anyone else presuming themselves to be sufficient authorities on what should or should not be allowed on pages, under rules created largely by themselves, in response to rather ludicrous claims, assertions and threats. I actually do not believe that I will have the time to adequately address all the issues which I perceive to be involved in that dispute, for at least several weeks, but thank you for allowing me to bring it up, simply to comment that I do actually intend to resume dealing with the issue when I do have more time to do so, and have taken care of a few things of far more pressing concern to me. ~ Kalki 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally am a few minutes late at making QOTD selections because of other activities or duties, and sometimes more than that when I have been unexpectedly delayed or lose my contact with the internet for some reason. I had to leave after a few of my previous edits today, and was delayed more than I was expecting to be in getting back, so I was 47 minutes late in making the selection today. My available connections are such that I do not expect to be entirely out of contact with the internet for over an hour, even if I lose power or cable-links at my primary locations, but if ever I am over an hour tardy, some other admin should probably make the QOTD selections for that day. ~ Kalki 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to do much more work on several pages, including the David Brin page, but there was a local accident which left me without power for several hours, and I remain without cable connections, and thus I currently can only access the internet through my iPhone. This would be sufficient in an emergency for QOTD updating, but is not really all that appropriate for more extensive editing. I used it to send this brief note, but unless cable connections are restored soon, I probably won't do much more here today. ~ Kalki 06:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am now at another location than my home, and I don't expect to do much more here today or tomorrow, beyond QOTD updating. Though the cable connections seem to now have been restored at my place, my rather old Wifi transmitter seems to have permanently died after being shut off for several hours during the aforementioned blackout, and it looks like I will have to get a new one, as one is necessary with my set-up. My last two desktop computers, though still operational, have lost their ethernet ports to separate lighting strikes in recent years, requiring the use of their Wifi capabilities, and my old 4G Powerbook, although it has a good ethernet port, is currently in need of other hardware repairs, or possibly replacement.

I am currently living in a rural area, in which my daily activities usually involve traveling a bit in the outskirts of three towns, and going through the heart of the smallest of them, and I very rarely make more extensive trips lately. Tomorrow I will probably go to a nearby city to get one of the newest generation of Wifi transmitters, and hopefully be able to fully restore all my normal means of internet access. ~ Kalki 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored all my internet connections, and do not anticipate further disruptions any time soon, but I remain very busy with many projects, and probably won't have as much time as I would like to work on this one for at least a few weeks. I will continue to check in on it intermittently when I have the time, and probably try to do as much as a few hours work on it here and there, when I can. ~ Kalki 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do a little work on the page you just created for Diana Ross, simply to prevent it from being deleted, but page creators should use some of the provided templates with an introduction and proper formating of sourced quotes. ~ Kalki 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How do i search for them for a person or etc? Softstones 09:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you encounter quotes elsewhere that are not reliably sourced to some published writings (books, magazines) or recordings, you can do a search with a search-engine such as Google (or Google News or Google Books) to find citations to such. This is what I did with the 2 unsourced quotes with which you started the article. I always try to cite the sources title, date and author, and usually a Chapter or page number in a book, and I usually look for the earliest sources I can find, preferably the original source itself, rather than a secondary source. ~ Kalki 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've pissed off enough editors (Dennys, Jackerson, etc) so I was trying really hard to not bring down a block on CoreyAD5, even though my gut was telling me it was a lost cause. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ // 01:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There was at least one incident where I thought you were too quick to use the option of permanently blocking a username, but it was clear this user was merely being a troll, and if such activity persists after the block, a permanent block would then be appropriate. ~ Kalki 02:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always open to constructive criticism, just for the record, and I can't become a better sysop unless I know where I'm failing. :) I'd be interested to know where you think I was a bit too gung-ho (it can be done via email if you don't want to post it on-wiki). EVula// talk // ☯ // 02:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not characterize it as "failing", but though User:Dennys had been largely a nuisance up to that time, and subsequently, through other accounts, behaved in such a way as certainly proved worthy of a permanent block, making the initial block on that account a permanent one was something I thought of at the time as being somewhat abrupt, and I probably would have given at least one short term block as a warning, after the rather ridiculous threat he made. The rampages he went on afterward was something we all had to deal with, and they were rather tedious to sort through. Though he might well have ended up permanently blocked anyway, when a named account is not used purely for vandalism or trolling, or not yet to such extremes of outrageousness as were later exhibited, I am inclined to give at least a temporary block, rather than a permanent one. IPs I am more ready to swiftly but temporarily block against vandals and trolls, but I don't believe I have ever blocked one for more than 6 months, because many of them are multiple user IPs anyways. On my iPhone a few weeks ago, I actually found myself initially using an IP that had been given a warning, though not a block, before logging in. ~ Kalki 02:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Correcting myself: I think I might have blocked a few IPs for a year, long ago, but then I read some recommendations somewhere against more than 6 months on IPs that weren't permanently blocked as open proxies, and 6 months is the longest I have blocked any of them for quite some time now. I am usually very reluctant to block named accounts permanently, as a first measure, no matter how much of an occasional nuisance they might be, if they aren't simply some of our pattern vandals or other vandalism-only accounts. ~ Kalki 02:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're pretty spot-on, and that's a situation that I do believe I had an active hand in creating unfortunately (and I do regret that everyone else had to deal with it as well, though at least you guys didn't get all the emails from him that I did). I'll definitely keep your comments in mind; I think I tend to be a bit too negative when it comes to dealing with borderline problem editors, and that one could have been handled differently. The attitude I've developed is definitely the downside to being a sysop on so many projects, I suppose...
Many thanks for the feedback. Feel free to knock me upside the head the next time you feel I need it. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ // 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to do more here today, but decided to try out Snow Leapord (Mac OS 10.6) on one of my blank hard drives, and then decided to use transfer options of all of my files from my primary drive, and that looks like it will take 7 - 8 hrs yet. I am typing this in on my iPhone, and am not likely to do more here until my new drive has fully completed all the transfers. ~ Kalki 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am back online briefly now, but have been busy updating some older apps that I have, and probably will have a bit of that to do for a while. I also have to be leaving soon, and doing that update and backup made me realize more clearly how much backup and sortation of files on various hard-drives I really ought to get around to soon (I have quite a few). I might be doing much more personal file work than Wikiquote work for at least a few days, but in the coming months I expect to be around, generally, much more than I had been for much of the year. ~ Kalki 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a wholly different view of how to take care of the cleanup and monitoring of the page Rush Limbaugh. If you like, I will de-watchlist it and defer further cleanup to you. Sound good? Cirt (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I might have a wholly different view, and you certainly are free to de-watch or watch whatever you wish, but I don't think too many of us here actually enjoy having to wade into many of these messes which arise on the pages on the more controversial subjects and people. I don't wish to strip the page down so much as some would, but I do expect that I am going to have to keep more of an eye on it anyway for some time to come. ~ Kalki 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a bad idea, Cirt. Kalki was warned about Eleemosynary, the IPs and the quotes as early as December 2007.[4] Yet up until just two days ago, he was edit-warring to restore this blatantly libelous material.[5][6][7][8][9]Proabivouac 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Proabivouac (talk · contributions), I was unaware of that. An admin that was previously involved on the page, indeed, reinserting disputed material, would not be the best one to mediate there. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kalki, in light of your knowledge of this since December 2007, and your prior involvement on the page, it would be best for you to back off of the cleanup process. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just back within the last few minutes, and as I indicated earlier, and by my general reticence to comment or react as fully as I might during this whole fiasco, I am not all that eager to get involved in it anyway. I do reserve the right to comment and express dissent to what seem to be generally accepted decisions or opinions though. I don't believe that I can be counted as someone who is falsely expectant of truth and grace soon prevailing in all the affairs of human beings, rather than various forms of shallow opinions and desires. ~ Kalki 23:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that of course you are entitled to always express your views - I merely was saying that you have been previously involved on this topic before. I apologize if my tone came across the wrong way, I did not mean to imply any more than that. I truly value your work and contributions on this project - just perhaps that on this particular page you might not be considered a previously uninvolved admin. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, CommonsDelinker has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!

Kalki, I apologize if my tone came across the wrong way in recent comments. I highly value your contributions and work on this project. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, though my words are sometimes harsh, when I think harshness is appropriate to the circumstances, I am far more often smiling with amusement than scowling in anger as I go about working on this project and many other things. What anger I feel is always directed towards specific types of actions and attitudes, and when I express it, it usually indicates a trust of at least some capacity in people to transcend the unpleasantness of certain things and perceive vitally important truths. I do not advocate holding on to animosity toward individuals or any groups of them, no matter how misguided I might perceive them to be, but I have implacable hostility toward situations in which any individuals or groups are unjustly oppressing anyone, or overly constraining others, and those most persistent in advocating such oppressions and constraints will find me most persistent in expressing hostilities to such actions. I do not actually wish to cause anyone any form of deep or permanent harm or disgrace, but I do wish to do what I can to help people overcome the profound stupidities of wishing harm or too much constraint upon others. I probably am far more inclined to laugh at many frustrating situations than to grow angry at them, and probably laugh at my own forms of foolishness far more than I laugh at the foolishness of anyone else. ~ Kalki 03:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, like I said above, I sincerely apologize if my tone came off the wrong way, and I hope you can accept my apology. I value your contributions to the project and look forward to collaborating positively with you in the future. :) Cirt (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What little editing I have done today has been done from someone else's computer. My new Wifi setup is working well at home, with much stronger signal than before, but I lost my cable connection very early today, and it is unlikely to be restored until sometime tomorrow. I have been using the break from the internet to begin doing quite a few other things I have been putting off for a while, and I will probably continue doing many of these for at least a couple of weeks, even though I do expect to be able to do more work here as well.
There are a few pages I'd been working on improving in the last few days that I hadn't had a chance to finish up on. I had just completed some minor work on the Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury page and was trying to finish up a bit on the Edmund Burke page when I realized I had lost my cable connection. This and a couple of others I had been working on, intermittently, for a few days will probably be among the first things I attend to here when I get my connections back. ~ Kalki 01:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was informed my cable problems were fixed many hours ago, but have just had a chance to get back home and check things out in the last few minutes. I will probably now be around doing some things here and there on the internet for at least a few more hours. ~ Kalki 22:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the spurious addition to the Winston Churchill page made by 93.41.169.185 on 14 October 2009. I have recently been making a number of edits to the Churchill page, trying to add source info on unsourced quotes, and also attempting to standardize the way some entries are formatted ( for example, quotes taken from his speeches in the House of Commons ). Earlier today (actually yesterday by now, I guess) I made a change which I subsequently discovered took place when I was not logged on: it was recorded as having been made by IP 172.130.18.78, to the (Early Career Years) section, at 17:43 on 16 October 2009. I made three other changes at later times when I was logged in. I do not know of a way to change the history data for this page to properly reflect the Username , nor do I know if this is even possible - in the past I have reverted my own edits and then re-entered them to correct similar situations, but I wondered if there was a simpler way to correct the data, which is why I am writing this section on your User talk page. Hope you have time to reply - I understand that you are busy. Archimedes (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of no way to actually do that, and I don't believe it would be an approved procedure to do so. I believe there are ways to delete part of the histories which are normally visible, but I have never done so, but I don't believe that changing them is permitted to anyone. ~ Kalki 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Because of the way I access the Internet ( I am in dial-up hell! How retro! ), I don't have a stable IP address; if that were not the case, I would have simply ignored the error. Does Wikiquote "time out" an inactive login after a certain time period? ( that is how it seems to be behaving ...) Archimedes (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, loss of "logged-in" status has occasionally occurred with many of us I believe. I have regularly used several locations to log in, and often found my connections lost between sessions, or even sometimes during them. ~ Kalki 04:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't expected to be back home again at this time, but must be leaving again very soon, but just wished to note that, after I dropped in and did the page updates with what is probably the longest QOTD yet — much of Henry V's Crispin's day speech:

This day is call'd — the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and sees old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his friends,
And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian;"
Then will he strip his sleeve, and show his scars,
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words, —
Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd, —
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me,
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England, now a-bed,
Shall think themselves accurs'd, they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap, whiles any speaks,
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

I actually found out about Wikiquote just yesterday. Since then, I've been browsing it all day. And then I realized theres nothing on Sheikh Mujib. And he was dubbed by a Newsweek cover as the "Poet of Politics". So Wikiquote definetly needed to have his best quotes.--UmranC 07:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalki, personally I think it is okay to wait for you until you have a time to prepare to give responses properly for your call for confidence as long as you esteem another part of the policy: it says "In the case of a called proposal, the user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed".

If you continue to use your sysop/b'crat power and want to hold the process, I am afraid I cannot support the idea to give you some moments. It were just to postpone the process for letting you use the right.

Please consider your actions in regard of the policy and think more carefully if it is trivial and can be therefore delayed. If you continue to use the right and insist the process should be started much later, I cannot be for the schedule you requested.

I have been very active preparing statements in regard to some current controversies for the last day or so, and will likely be working upon them for at least a day or two more. I also have many other tasks I have to attend to besides Wikiquote controversies, so I won't always be present here, but I do intend to archive most of this page today and begin afresh, with many of the arguments I seek to present. I expect it will probably be at least several hours before I can finish this, and a few other things, and post new material here, but I am earnestly and actively engaged in composing some important declarations, and don't actually expect to be finished with some of them today. ~ Kalki 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I left you a few yes or no questions. [10] I would appreciate you answering them as soon as possible so the Community can move forward with the discussion and Vote of confidence about you retaining your extra permissions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been very busy today, and did not have the time to even check in here but very briefly a couple of times earlier, and just recently got in for the day. Unfortunately, I am now expecting many real-life tasks and non-Wikiquote activities to be consuming much of my time over the next week or so, but will continue to make statements concerning current controversies to the extent I have the time, as well as doing what work I can here, if their remains some periods where I can simply relax from the mental stresses of complicated considerations and the formation of adequate compositions and expressions to actually do that. I have just now looked at your questions, and will respond to them adequately when I have the time, which I expect to have within the next day or so, though I will state that delivering a response to your particular questions is not actually going to be the highest priority on my agenda, as I am also at work on other ideas to defend myself against the current blizzard of assumptions, presumptions and accusations. I might well have some surprising Yes or No questions for others to respond to as well. ~ Kalki 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just making a note confirming that the name Taliesin is also a name I have used here, as I have just edited with it elsewhere, and declared it to be mine. ~ Kalki 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The last few days have unexpectantly been ones of increasing off-line activity for me, and this might again be the case today. I had far less time here than I expected to have, and still have many things to attend to. I have examined a few recent statements and begun to prepare further responses, but I must be leaving now, and will probably reflect carefully on matters before responding to things more fully later today. ~ Kalki 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A short while ago I awoke from less than 2 hours of sleep, after another long day in which I did far more physical work and a bit more mental work than I had expected to do, and woke up with a renewed confidence and optimism about many things, despite many of the controversies and burdens I am having to deal with. There are still many things I have to deal with elsewhere than here, so I remain reticent about promising too much, but I do intend to be active here in coming days, to the fullest extent of my abilities, amidst many other duties I actually value as higher and more important than many of my duties and desires to work here. I continue to think earnestly upon many things and compose responses to many challenges, and do hope to have some impressive responses to some inquiries and demands ready to become available to others within the next 24 hrs. I certainly do not expect all questions to be satisfactorily answered nor all controversies to be resolved in anything like so short a time, but I believe that I will be able to give a more thorough and revealing assessment of many situations within that time. I thank everyone for what patience they have displayed, and wish to re-iterate that despite what adversarial relations seem to have developed to some extent between me and a few others here in recent days, I truly do not bear malice, nor seek to promote it, towards anyone. ~ Kalki 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My own plans and activities continue to mutate with circumstances I encounter. I continue to have more things to deal with here and elsewhere than I could possibly deal with adequately, either to my own or anyone else's satisfaction, but even though I do get weary, and sometimes a little depressed about some matters, a little nap seems to rejuvenate me a great deal, and allow more ideas on how to handle many of them better to emerge, and most my days have actually been very joyfully active doing much that is, or I believe soon shall be, of great benefit to others, including many who have been my adversaries on some issues. I have already dispensed with many ideas I have had, after some I had had were effectively disposed of by others, and am allowing things to progress as the dictates of necessity compel.
I do intend to proceed as swiftly as possible, on a few necessary things here, but some things might require a bit more thought and consideration on my part, and I will make no promises at all as to when I expect some of them might be finished.
I know I might seem a very frustrating player or adversary to some of you, but I am truly working on such things as I hope will eventually be to your delight and benefit, and early on I saw some possibilities of compromises and coordinations of will as would not be compromising to my own or anyone else's ultimate integrity. I will be exploring my thoughts on such things throughout the day, but I just checked in here briefly to make this note, for now I must once again prepare to leave, for at least an hour, and probably more. ~ Kalki 14:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)